Klarinet Archive - Posting 000051.txt from 2005/03

From: Tom Flavel <tom@-----.net>
Subj: Re: [kl] Expectations for professionals
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2005 00:18:10 -0500

On 01/03/2005 22:21:56, Tony Pay wrote:
> On 1 Mar, Tom Flavel <tom@-----.net> wrote:
>
> > On 01/03/2005 15:01:59, Tony Pay wrote:
> >
> > > On 1 Mar, "Vann Joe Turner" <medpen@-----.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Tony, if I'd written the gobbledegook that you did for the Cambridge
> > > > Companion, I'd be ashamed.
> > >
> > > Care to say why?
> >
> > I think part of his point involves that you skip that which you are
> > unable to exert superiority over, and head for the few specific comments
> > you can make use of, by argumentum ad hominem or otherwise.
>
> OK, I understand that that's what you make of the sum total of my posts.
> Argumentum ad hominem as a default, and then otherwise.

Quite the contary: from what I see (and I read with enjoyment, even if
I'm not particularly vocal), the majority of your comments are
well-founded. I'm saying that it's a shame the personal attacks sneak in
amongst them, since they undermine that foundation.

> > I assume this behaviour is an attempt to make all of his (or whoever's)
> > points appear ill-founded because of one unrelated comment.
>
> I just wanted to focus on a comment that I might be able to answer.
>
> I cannot defend myself against the charge that I don't have a clue how the
> human heart works, or the charge that I played a performance that he found
> deficient. In fact have to say that -- of course -- I found that performance
> deficient myself.

Nor could I :)

> Instead, I ask: what is 'gobbledegook' in what I wrote in the Cambridge
> Companion?
>
> We might even have a productive discussion.

That's an excellent aim!

--
Tom

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Klarinet is a service of Woodwind.Org, Inc. http://www.woodwind.org